Capitol Digest

Surgeon General Antonia C. Novello last week criticized the sale and
marketing of Cisco, a fruit-flavored, fortified wine becoming
increasingly popular among high-school students.

Dr. Novello said the New York-based Canandaigua Wine Company
packages Cisco to look, smell, and taste like popular low-alcohol wine
coolers.

But, she said, one 375-milliliter bottle contains the equivalent of
five shots of 80-proof vodka.

She alleged that a 100-pound person could die of acute alcohol
poisoning one hour after consuming two bottles of the drink.

Calling 40-proof Cisco "the ultimate wine fooler" and a "binge drink
in one bottle," the Surgeon General called on Canandaigua to repackage
Cisco in bottles that do not resemble wine coolers.

Since September, the company has labelled the product as "not a wine
cooler," enlarged the print identifying the alcohol content as 20
percent, instructed stores not to place the product next to wine
coolers, and removed in-store advertising that reads, "Cisco takes you
by surprise," said Marvin Sands, the firm's chairman.

"The real issue is underage drinking and teenage alcohol abuse," he
said. "Singling out one product is not an effective way of
accomplishing the goals" of eradicating the problem.

A federal judge has lifted a temporary restraining order that
prevented the Education Department from enforcing new
"ability-to-benefit" test requirements for student-aid applicants.

U.S. District Judge George H. Revercomb canceled the order after the
department added six examinations to the list of those that it had
previously approved for gauging the ability of student-aid applicants
who have not graduated from high school to benefit from postsecondary
study.

The new tests included two produced by E.F. Wonderlic Personnel Test
Inc., the firm that sued the department.

Additional tests will be accepted for review through March 31,
1991.

A separate restraining order against the new rule that was issued by
a federal judge in California remains in effect.

A hearing in that case was scheduled for Jan. 14.

The House has repealed a provision of last year's budget agreement
that called for the Office of Management and Budget to determine the
cost of tax cuts and entitlement-spending increases.

By a vote of 242 to 160 on Jan. 3, the Democratic-controlled House
restored to the Congressional Budget Office the authority to determine
such cost estimates.

Estimates by the cbo and the omb often differ widely. Such figures
are critical because, according to the budget agreement, tax cuts or
new spending on entitlements are to be offset by corresponding spending
cuts or tax increases.

If those measures cannot be taken, automatic spending cuts take
place in entitlement programs.

President Bush has vowed to veto the bill, which includes a number
of other rule changes.

The Education Department is not adequately monitoring its program
for homeless children, the General Accounting Office has concluded.

The gao study, which was completed late last year, found that while
the department and three other federal agencies have eased barriers
that some claimed hindered efforts to help the homeless under the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Act of 1987, they have not adequately
monitored or evaluated their programs.

In general, said the report, the federal agencies "do not know how
effective their McKinney Act programs are in assisting the
homeless."

The gao also has concluded that federal drug-education programs have
not been adequately evaluated for their effectiveness.

In a report released late last year, the agency reviewed the
implementation of the federal drug-education law of 1986 in six urban
school districts.

The districts spent their funds on a variety of approaches,
including counseling, teacher training, and curricula, the report said.
Yet, it noted, little is known about which of these approaches work
best.

Nonetheless, schools generally were pleased with the program, the
report found.

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.